I wanted to make a quick post on the SSPX and the former Ecclesia Dei Communities vis-a-vis the Bergoglian attacks on the Mass. Knowing me, it won’t be that quick, but still.
Recently, the SSPX Superior General published a talk noting, after some remarks to the effect that there are many fine people in these communities and he feels sorry for them, that the Ecclesia Dei priests are suffering the results of their own poor decision-making. See, he notes, this proves the SSPX position is the only one that works.
No mention was made in this talk about how at least one such Ecclesia Dei community has not buckled under the unjust and illegal order of the odious Cardinal Cupich, but has (so far) bravely and resolutely continued to do exactly as it has done and celebrate the Mass of the Ages. No mention either was made how that same community has maintained recourse to the pre-1955 books that even Archbishop Lefebvre compromised on when he staked his defense of tradition (note: this is not a cut-down– I understand why he made that choice and I have zero criticism of this brave man’s actions in the face of great evil). No mention was made either that this same community, which so many of Fr. Pagliarani’s faithful have predicted to me personally would fold like a cheap tent, has not compromised on the Mass and (as of yet anyway) shows no sign of doing so.
Maybe a better article would have been for Fr. Pagliarani to stand with his beleaguered fellow Catholics and urge them to stand firm, with the prayerful support of the SSPX. Maybe he could wait until these communities are actually obliterated, crushed or otherwise devastated before beginning their post mortem?
(An aside: You might, dear reader, turn the tables and ask where the support was during olden times from the Ecclesia Dei people to the SSPX. A fair point, which I address in two ways. First, many of us did so support them. Some of you may or may not remember that this particular blogger did stand up for the SSPX on a number of occasions, for example, when a local SSPX pilgrimage was locked out of the Shrine of Our Lady of Starkenburg after walking many a weary pilgrim mile. I said then it was an outrage and a lack of charity. There have been other occasions. But, secondly, those of us who failed in charity and solidarity then were wrong just as those who now so fail are wrong.)
There are many ways to testify to the Faith and Sacraments, and to be loyal to Christ Our King. Some are firebrands. Some are quiet. Some speak. Some do. Any can be, and all should be, resolute in their commitment to the Mass handed down by our forefathers in the Faith and developed under the guidance of the Holy Ghost for more than a millenium.
And yet, and yet, the SSPX acknowledges Bergoglio as pope, just the other traditional groups have openly or tacitly done. The Ecclesia Dei-type communities have been in his crosshairs from early days. But Bergoglio has shown some of his famous Francismercy to the SSPX over the last several years. One wonders whether this has any effect on Fr. Pagliarani’s public support of the deathvaxx, for instance. Perhaps not. But if the other communities are crushed, and there is but one place left to go, how long before the SSPX and all who attend are “excommunicated” by the man they acknowledge as pope?
Well, if only someone would ask Father, now that he has been summoned to Rome for an audience with the Bergoglio himself.
Until the papacy/antipapacy question is squarely addressed by supporters of tradition, Bishop, priest, and lay, we all have a glaring logical and practical weakness in resisting Bergoglio’s evil diktats. Sure, even if he is pope we can rest assured that assisting at the timeless Mass is our right, but the problem solves itself cleanly (logically-speaking) if he is determined not to ever have been pope, because, you see– WE ALREADY HAVE ONE AND IT IS A ONE-MAN JOB.
I hate to reference a Freemason like Benjamin Franklin, but friends, we all must hang together, or we shall certainly hang separately.
Time is wasting.
Saint Louis Catholic 
Malachi Martin stated that Ukraine & Russia were mentioned by name in the Third Secret. Events are starting to roll downhill & are picking up steam. If one throws a pebble into the ocean that would be a comparison between the cupcake that is Cupich and the rock that was Francis Cardinal George whom he succeeded.
Can you give a link to that Malachi Martin quote? Most interesting.
I believe he specifically mentioned Kiev as being involved in the Third Secret on a radio show back around 1996.
The videos with Bernard Jansen were made in the early to mid 1990s
At 11:46-13:05 in Malachi Martin mentions “Russian and Kiev” in connection with the Third Secret of Fatima
.
Russia in Catholic Prophecy
Cardinal George was a Bernardin clone, and said on numerous occasions that Bernardin was his model. He never replaced a Bernardin appointment, ever! He was good at posturing Right, which you have fallen for.
“No mention was made in this talk about how at least one such Ecclesia Dei community has not buckled under the unjust and illegal order of the odious Cardinal Cupich, but has (so far) bravely and resolutely continued to do exactly as it has done and celebrate the Mass of the Ages.”
I might also single out the *other* traditional institute, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, which has been pretty robust publicly in indicating they won’t compromise on their mission. Alas, they have little presence in the U.S. (two parishes, at last check), so we don’t often have cause to think or talk about them.
Thank you! No slight intended
Maybe I missed it, but it’s not at all clear to me just which ED community isn’t complying with Cupich. Please clarify, thanks.
The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest celebrates the Mass on all Sundays, contra the Cupich edict of only NO on first Sunday and other arbitrary times
The ICRSS seems to have the same stance as the other Ecclessia Dei societies and orders, to wit: “It doesn’t apply to us.”
So far, at any rate, +Cupich seems unwilling to challenge them on that.
Yes, but that will come soon enough, of rumors of the Ash Wednesday Massacre are true. And Fr. P is right to point out that if the primary defense is to point to one’s approved foundational documents, then what is left should the pope suppress the society of apostolic right, as he has the power to do? That is why the only effective path is to settle the question of whether this guy is actually pope. That problem also besets the society. Waiting for the alligator to eat you last isn’t my favorite strategy.
1. It’s true: A society of pontifical right has a certain vulnerability to the pontiff who grants the right. And as you say, if the rumors of a coming crackdown on the ED societies have merit (which would surprise none of us), then the ICRSS will really be put over the fire.
2. “That is why the only effective path is to settle the question of whether this guy is actually pope.”
I mean no offense when I say that for my part, that’s a question above my pay grade. I don’t have any special insight into the thinking of Msgr Wach – no more than you – but I also don’t know what they might know. Is it inconceivable that they might just be hoping that Francis predeceases any such crackdown? They’ve achieved a great deal over the years through prudent action, so I’m a little reluctant to second guess them.
“We all must hang together, or we shall certainly hang separately”
This, this, this.
Whatever your position, whatever “group” you are squawking. The Catholic Church, The Traditional Mass, The Priest in a Cassock. Those are the three minimums for my family. I am attending an SSPX Chapel, but have spent years in Ecclesia Dei communities and Diocesan TLM communities.
The worst we could do now is argue/nitpick each other back to the catacombs. Providence is practical. And I do not believe it is very practical to squabble over the crumbs of division when we, at all of our communities still standing after July’s TC Moto, have the Mass of Ages and the Eternal Truths of Holy Mother Church as our cornerstone.
Let’s act as God intended, like His heirs and the friends of His only Beloved Son.
Unite the Clans, as Michael Matt would put it.
I am saddened that the Ecclesia Dei communities find themselves in this present state but agree with Father Pagliarani’s insights.
Very astute. The two issues seem entirely intertwined.
Suppose Lefebvre were right totally and acted rightly totally. “We remain with Tradition and the Succession of the Apostles” and went deeper into Tradition.
Suppose Rome parted itself from Tradition and went father from Tradition.
Which Catholics would have the Supernatural Protection Which Christ Promised and even perhaps Jurisdiction?
Which side would begin to degrade?
How deep could the degredation and how large the loss of Jurisdiction get?
Am not stating fact nor judgment. Am positing a hypothesis only.
By the way, I would like to second your comment in the post, Timman: “Maybe a better article would have been for Fr. Pagliarani to stand with his beleaguered fellow Catholics and urge them to stand firm, with the prayerful support of the SSPX. Maybe he could wait until these communities are actually obliterated, crushed or otherwise devastated before beginning their post mortem?”
I’ve generally had a positive impression of Fr Pagliarani, so it’s regrettable that this ended up being converted into a “I told you so” moment.
I have no animus against him or the society, and I’ve read lots of great things he’s written. I wish him well. I just find the deathvaxx posture disappointing and surprising, as I am sure many of his faithful do also.
On further reflection, Timman, I fear my comment may have been misleading. My regret was wholly directed at Fr Pagliarani, not you! It rubs just a bit raw since this is not exactly an unprecedented posture of SSPX loyalists toward traditionalists who have chosen to live and worship within canonical communities since 1988. Usually, though, it’s the kind of thing you get from the Society laity, rather than the leadership.
No offense taken, I read it the way you intended. There are great people and not so great in the SSPX and every other group. It’s called being Catholic. No worries. At the risk of cliche, several of my closest friends are SSPX.
Truly, and assuredly, a minority view.
Pingback: Canon212 Update: Trust Us. We Stand For ‘Authority,’ See? – The Stumbling Block
Many of us are empathetic to the present situation of the Ecclesia Dei communities.
.
.
.
Our friends at the Institute and those in the FSSP and other Communities remain in our prayers.
Vice versa
Tin Man: “Maybe a better article would have been for Fr. Pagliarani to stand with his beleaguered fellow Catholics and urge them to stand firm, with the prayerful support of the SSPX.”
My reading was that Fr. Pagliarani was *entirely sympathetic* to the plight of Ecclesia Dei communities, and understands, in solidarity, their situation well. Your “better article” was precisely the article he published – the whole point of it, actually.
Tin Man: “Maybe he could wait until these communities are actually obliterated, crushed or otherwise devastated before beginning their post mortem?”
I didn’t see this article as a “post mortem” at all. It was an article of encouragement to look to the Cross in solidarity with all Christian’s. As he put it – “So what is eternal and makes our fight invincible? It is Faith. Verbum Domini manet in æternum (1 Peter 1:25).
Fr. Pagliarani: “It is Faith that is the necessary foundation for the current battle, our fight for Tradition. It is Faith and not any privilege … Quite simply, we want two things: the Faith and the Mass. We want Catholic doctrine and the Cross that nourish the spiritual life and the moral life of souls. We want them now, unconditionally and for everyone. And if we keep this perspective, the Society of Saint Pius X will always be, and perfectly be, a work of the Catholic Church. The Society will always work at the very heart of the Church, which has no other aim than to obtain the salvation of souls, in the Church and for the Church.”
I was very, very encouraged by this letter from Fr. Pagliarani. It matches what I hear in Mass, during Homilies. The return to Tradition is gathering force and the “Trad-communities” are reconciling around Christ, The Faith, the Sacred Deposit of Faith. All the “controversy” melts away as we look beyond the secular dramas and see Christ and His Bride.
There is no need to be in competition or jealous, one with another. We suffer together. We will likewise conquer together, in Christ. THAT was my takeaway.
I think Fr. P (if I may use the shorthand) does show some sympathy, and there are some worthy sentiments and observations in his letter.
But when Timman says “See, he notes, this proves the SSPX position is the only one that works,” he seems to me to be referring to this passage: “However, in all reality, this new situation that has arisen, shows more than ever that the position of the Society of Saint Pius X is the only viable position that holds together.”
I don’t doubt that Fr P. (and indeed, most of his priests) truly believes that. But it’s that kind of critical line one often finds in Society discourse, and it’s reasonable to ask if this was the time and place for such a jab. It is not “We think there were multiple reasonable responses, and we happen to think there is more to be said for ours,” but “Only we have the answers.”
All that said, I did appreciate a couple of qualifying gestures Fr P. makes to the Ecclesia Dei people further on: “On the other hand, with the notion of a Living Tradition, what do we end up with? It was difficult to foresee it in 1988.” And: “History is a great teacher of life and of prudence, and the Ecclesia Dei institutes are today faced with a choice. However, they do have an advantage. They have the hindsight that Archbishop Lefebvre did not have at the time. Fifty years later, people with good will, have additional elements to help them evaluate what is happening in the Church.” So,I appreciate the admission that not all of what has happened over the last several years was foreseeable by traditional Catholics of good will.
Of course, I can’t help but observe that this could be said even of the good archbishop himself, as +Lefebvre was on record more than once from the moment of the 1988 consecrations in stating his belief that a resolution would not be long in coming. Clearly, 34 years on, that has not been the case (alas). And I think that, in turn, should serve as a warning to us: It may indeed be the case that Econe had this pegged all along. But while none of us can predict the future with certainty, I think we must be honest with ourselves in adopting the expectation (given the complexion of the vast majority of the hierarchy and the laity as it exists currently) that no restoration of the Church is likely for generations to come. Yes, God may provide a miracle; or some other crisis may inject an unexpected tipping point; but in the meanwhile, we must brigade our supernatural virtue of hope with realistic expectations, which have more than a little of the appearance of the situation of the Russian Old Believers.
I myself don’t see “any other position” that works, or is even theologically and intellectually honest.
The “SSPX position”, as I see it, is to accept all of the II Vatican Council and subsequent Constitutions that can be accepted; and to reject all that cannot be accepted”.
It is pure faith, that says such a thing and is in total alignment with the Church’s teaching Magisterium, as I understand it.
The Ecclesia Dei position is that everything from II Vatican Council must be accepted Dei Fidei, including its subsequent Constitutions and Liturgy – in full obedience to the Pope.
1: SSPX places the Church Magisterium and its Sacred Deposit of Faith above all, the Pope must be in obedience to and a servant of it.
2: Ecclesia Dei places the Pope above all – the Church Magisterium and the Sacred Deposit of Faith under his sole authority.
1 is tenable and supportable by Sacred Tradition. 2 is not.
I may misunderstand their position, but if so, then they are more in agreement with SSPX than I thought.
Ultimately, it is not about competitions between Societies and “Clans”. In my limited experience, SSPX certainly doesn’t see it that way. They are focused on preserving Sacred Tradition and working toward a return within the Church to true unity, under the Pope, within the Ark of the Sacred Deposit of Faith once delivered. They don’t want power or prestige of being “right”. They, like me, just want the Church of the Apostolic Line back.
The “SSPX position”, as I see it, is to accept all of the II Vatican Council and subsequent Constitutions that can be accepted; and to reject all that cannot be accepted”.
That isn’t the SSPX position— it is the Catholic position. SSPX holds it. The E. D. Communities hold it. What other Catholic position could there be?
The difference among some individuals amongst both groups is the idea that some problematic v2 language can be squared with what the Church has always taught. That exercise is either not possible, sometimes possible or relatively easily possible. The merits of this attempt can be debated. But what cannot be debated is that if anything in v2 is contra what the Church has always taught, then v2 must give way to Church teaching— never vice versa.
I suspect on this issue I am closer to your position than the position you claim is the ecclesia Dei position.
One final comment, and I don’t mean to be tendentious by raising this point – but to me it is the crux of the matter.
Ecclesia Dei has always accepted the New Mass as a legitimate form of the Mass and an acceptable alternative to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They have accepted the authority of the Pope to advance this Mass throughout the Church and to advance the theology of the Constitutions arising in the aftermath of Vatican II.
If they accept these premises … why can’t they themselves say this New Mass? Especially if granted an indult to say the Tridentine Holy Sacrifice from time to time, why can’t they also say New Mass since it is such a crucial desire of the Pope?
They accept New Mass.
They accept the authority of the Pope to advance New Mass.
They are in full submission to the Pope.
They reject those (SSPX) who assert reservations against modern innovations.
Question: why don’t they say the New Mass? That seems logical from their premises.
Tinman: “What other Catholic position could there be?”
I agree. And I am quite certain SSPX agrees even more.
My understanding of Ecclesia Dei, and the reason for the letter from Fr. Pagliarani, is that they *do not* hold the view you say. They contend ALL of it CAN be squared with Catholic Doctrine – especially in regards to New Mass; in fact it MUST. Which is why FSSP Priests ultimately split off from the SSPX Order (they “must square V II, somehow, and not disobey; disobedience on unsquareable deviations the key to division). Which is also why Arbp LeFebvre consecrated five Bishops in direct disobedience to Pope John Paul II (after Assisi he could no longer reconcile the words of the Vatican and the actions); he could not “square the Doctrine”, nor could he see any possibility of immediate resolution for his spiritual children of Catholic Tradition.
So, again, while I heartily agree with what you say – I does appear to me the point of contention between FSSP and SSPX has been FSSP (Ecclesia Dei) disagreement with you, and that their ongoing “untenable position” (Fr. P’s words) is now being forced to be faced by a Pope and a Vatican no longer willing to hide the obvious.
“They contend ALL of it CAN be squared with Catholic Doctrine – especially in regards to New Mass; in fact it MUST.”
That’s somewhat more robust than what their charter actually says, though.
Richard Malcom, two questions:
1: What was the cause of the split – FSSP from SSPX?
2: What does their charter say (in ref to liturgical and theological disputations and specifically in regards to he Pope’s authority to compel – reference back to question 1)?
I am not claiming expertise. I follow these things closely, but with many pots on my fire, I legitimately don’t claim to have all the answers.
My understanding is generally what I wrote above, from many conversations, multiplied hours with my (former) FSSP Priest (we moved), peer group, online discussions. I am somewhat current on the SSPX position, am I missing something from the Ecclesia Dei side?
Absent a response to my question, the difference between FSSP and SSPX is this, per the SSPX official web site:
– quote –
“SSPX versus FSSP: true versus false notion of the magisterium
It seems to me that this exaggeration of the infallibility of the pope is at the root of the difference between the FSSP and the SSPX. For the FSSP, the pope could not be wrong in excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre. For the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre was right in “transmitting what he had received”, including his very episcopate, to assure the faithful transmission of the Catholic Faith, “without which Faith no one can be justified”.[9]
Fidelity is the principle of the SSPX
That great principle of fidelity is the very principle of the Society of St. Pius X, fidelity to the faith of all times, fidelity to the liturgy of all times, fidelity to the faith of the saints, fidelity to the Mass of the saints, fidelity to the morals of the saints, fidelity to the Church! It was the very principle of Archbishop Lefebvre’s whole life: “tradidi quod et accepi—I have transmitted that which I have received.”
– end quote –
As far as I can tell, the difference between the two is in essence a question over the priority of Pope or Magisterium. If the Pope rules the Magisterium, then the Consecrations should not have happened and the Society should have been allowed to die. If the Pope rules the Magisterium, then the Holy Sacrifice should end and the New Mass should prevail; the ancient understandings of Doctrine should end and the new Doctrine of Vatican II should prevail. Thus is the will of the Pope – out with the old, in with the new.
If the Magisterium rules the Pope, then the Holy Sacrifice can never end and a New Mass is impossible. If the Magisterium rules the Pope, then Doctrine is settled and new Doctrine is heretical by definition.
The Pope serves the Magisterium; the Magisterium does not serve the Pope.
This was the choice faced by LeFebvre.
This is the crux of the split. FSSP disagreed with fundamental premises.
That choice is now personally faced by FSSP, by edict of “Pope” Francis. That choice is now personally faced by us all. No longer, theoretical – real. That is the point of the letter of Fr. Pagliarani. It is a time for honesty, and that is a blessing.
I disagree, in this respect only. The decision of the pope to withhold permission to consecrate bishops is more in line with an administrative or disciplinary decision, rather than of doctrine. Not that one couldn’t make a case that if no bishops were consecrated it would imperil the amass and sacraments down the road. That’s a qualitative difference from abrogating the Mass outright.
.
Tin Man: I agree with you. The post-Assisi Bishop consecrations were done because they pointed to the prophetic mind of Arbp LeFebvre of what was to come, something much, much worse – namely the abrogation of the Holy Sacrifice by the Bishop of Rome and the Bishops in union with him. And after that … all else falls.
They were a marker. This is the real deal.
Which Ecclesia Dei community under Cupich uses the 1955 books?
I’m assuming this is a reference to the Institute of Christ the King, and its apostolate at the Shrine of Christ the King. But while it is true that they received permission to celebrate the pre-1955 Holy Week from PCED, I’m unclear whether they make use of the pre-1955 Roman missal in any other way.